Forwarded to the group - Nancy << Subj: Re: [HANDLEY-L] Copyright info to mull over Date: 12/10/1999 4:30:18 PM Central Standard Time From: kathyhandley@earthling.net (Kathy Handley) Reply-to: kathyhandley@earthling.net (Kathy Handley) To: sftrail@aol.com (Couldn't get this through to the list; I thought I tried to post from the wrong address, but after changing it it was still returned to me. So I'm sending it on privately to you, rather than keep bouncing messages to the list! Take care --) Hi Nancy, and everyone else -- As a writer I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out different nuances of copyright law. I read the article you mentioned here, and I think I can help. The book itself, as a creative work, is protected by copyright. The facts within the book are just that -- facts. If you were to go through the book and extract all of the factual information and present it on a webpage, that would be fine. But to simply copy and republish the book as it was written is a violation of copyright. On the other hand, all that's needed to prevent copyright violation is the express permission to reprint from the current copyright holder (the author). Since you have permission -- WRITTEN permission, even, there's no problem at all. At the same time, you ARE required to place a notice at the bottom of each page that reads: Copyright (c) 1975 John Doe. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. (Changing the date and name, of course! :)) As far as information on living people goes, it's still factual information, it's not protected by copyright or anything else. If someone published my full name, or my birthday or town of birth, I couldn't very well argue about it -- it's information that's publicly available. In fact, just this past summer, my high school published a directory of its alumni, and there I was, my full name, address, and phone number. I didn't give them permission, I didn't talk to them at all -- but they are completely allowed to do it. The only real question is privacy, and that's always been a sticky issue with genealogy on the web. *I* know that if I publish a family tree, and I let it be publicly known that my dad's name is Alan, and I have a brother named Ben and a sister named Becky, I'm not exactly putting anyone's life or privacy in danger. But *they* might feel differently, and I feel I have an obligation to get their permission before I make any information more than their first names available. But I'm thinking about things like sharing gedcoms or publishing a tree at Kindred Konnections or Family Tree Maker. This situation is different: this is a book on Handleys for Handley researchers. Handley researchers pose little or no threat to other members of their extended family, and the odds that anyone else would find it online, let alone read it when it was of no use to them personally, are astronomically small. Put it this way: first names and birthyears and states of residence are fine. Social security numbers, exact addresses, phone numbers -- asking for trouble. It's all public information, but you have to draw a line somewhere and allow for privacy. To keep the copyright intact, all you need to do is this: If the original text reads something like this -- Ebenezer Scrooge Handley, of Handley & Son Antiques in Austin, TX, was born in 1903 to Bob Cratchit Handley and Leonora Scrooge. He is still alive and well and living at 321 Main Street in Austin. Change it so it reads -- Ebenezer Scrooge Handley, of Handley & Son Antiques in Austin, TX, was born in 1903 to Bob Cratchit Handley and Leonora Scrooge. He is still alive and well and living ... in Austin. "..." signifies that a portion of the original statement has been removed. If you need to *change* something entirely, you would use brackets: He is still alive and well and living ... in [Texas]. As for businesses, that's nothing to worry about at all. Just be sure nothing being said about them is potentially libelous. Saying that "Jim Smith, the owner of the local fish market, was an irresponsible man with poor personal hygiene" is libelous -- it's not a factual statement, and it's damaging to his reputation and his ability to do business -- and Jim Smith or his family could be quite upset about it. On the other hand, something factual like "Tainted cod from Jim Smith's Downtown Fish Emporium caused a salmonella epidemic that killed a family of four" is completely all right -- it doesn't comment on Jim personally, merely an actual event that took place. This is getting VERY long-winded so I'm going to stop now, but I'll say this -- it's mostly all common sense. If you want to completely omit details on living people, you can do that too. Imagine this sentence tells the names and birthdays of seven children, three of whom are still alive. "They had three sons and seven daughters: Joe, Bob, [LIVING], Alice, Carol, [LIVING] and [LIVING]. Joe was born December 8, 1883; Bob was born exactly one year later .... Alice and Carol, twins, were born in 1887 ...." -- Just remove things using "..." or [brackets]. I hope this helps some, and let me know if you need me to clarify anything. I wrote this out pretty quickly. :) Happy holidays to all, Kathy. kathyhandley@earthling.net ----- Original Message ----- >>===snip====